IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:09.01.2026 Between:

Praneeth Doudu …Petitioner/Accused And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

... Respondents

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in PRC No.14 of 2025 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Parkal, Hanumakonda District, registered for the offence under Section 69 of BNS.

2. Heard Sri B. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations under Section 69 of BNS do not get attracted against the petitioner in this case as there was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. The marriage of the petitioner with the de facto complainant was fixed, but later due to some misunderstandings, the alliance was broken. He further submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were in relationship for 8 years prior to lodging the complaint, but surprisingly, the de facto complainant has filed a false complaint. Therefore, in case of consensual relationship, the offence under Section 65 or 69 of BNS does not get attracted and hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner has admitted the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and that the question whether the relationship is consensual or under a promise of marriage can be ascertained during the course of trial and that the petitioner cannot escape from the trial, as the prosecution could collect ample evidence during the course of investigation and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. A perusal of the complaint points out that the de facto complainant got acquainted with the petitioner for over a period of 8 years and that in January, 2024, he made a marriage proposal to her. She conveyed the same to her parents, but initially her parents did not agree and thereafter, they have agreed for the marriage and the marriage was fixed. Subsequently, the petitioner asked the de facto complainant to leave her job, but she did not listen to him. The petitioner went to Chattisgarh to attend his duties. While so, in May, 2024 during vacation, the petitioner went to the house of the de facto complainant in the absence of the other family members and had a physical relationship with her on the pretext that they are about to get married. Thereafter, from October, 2024 he started suspecting the de facto complainant and harassed her by using abusive language and used to say that he does not like her to work anywhere and thus, she had to resign her job. Finally he expressed that he does not want to marry her. Therefore, the de facto complainant filed the present complaint. The allegations in the complaint prima facie point out the offence under Section 69 of BNS. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when there is consensual relationship, the offence under Section 69 BNS does not get attracted to the petitioner and that the de facto complainant is a matured woman and was in total consciousness when she entered into the physical relationship. In the present case, the physical relationship is alleged to have taken place only after the marriage was fixed. Thus, the allegations made by the de facto complainant are that it is only on believing the petitioner that he would marry her, she had the physical relationship. The evidence of LWs.7 and 8, who are shown to be the elders of the locality, also falls for consideration during the course of trial. The truth in the allegations can be culled out only after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, t